Bangladesh have been dropped from the 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup and replaced by Scotland after the International Cricket Council (ICC) refused to approve Bangladesh’s request to relocate their matches from India, a decision that has triggered sharp accusations of bias, political pressure, and unequal treatment in world cricket.
According to Wisden, the episode has laid bare a growing credibility problem for the ICC, as critics argue that powerful cricket boards are granted flexibility while smaller nations are punished for standing their ground.
The crisis unfolded after the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) raised security concerns over travelling to India for their scheduled group-stage matches. Following weeks of meetings, risk assessments, and negotiations, the ICC rejected Bangladesh’s relocation request and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to confirm participation. When Bangladesh refused, citing player safety and national dignity, the ICC finalised their removal from the tournament. Scotland were subsequently named as their replacement in what is being seen as one of the most politically charged World Cup reshuffles in ICC history.
Revered cricket publication Wisden reports that the backlash intensified because of the stark contrast with how the ICC handled India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan for the 2025 Champions Trophy. In that case, India informed the ICC months in advance that it would not tour Pakistan. Rather than sanctioning India, the ICC approved a hybrid model, allowing India to play its matches in Dubai. Pakistan, despite having previously toured India for the 2023 ODI World Cup, had to accept the compromise. The message, critics argue, was clear: India gets accommodation, Bangladesh gets replaced.
Pakistan Cricket Board chairman Mohsin Naqvi openly called out the ICC’s inconsistency, saying the governing body cannot operate with “double standards.” Many within the cricketing world now see Bangladesh’s expulsion as further proof that financial muscle and political influence, not fairness, determine ICC decisions.
Wisden also points to the role of Indian Premier League politics in triggering the crisis. Kolkata Knight Riders released Bangladeshi fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman from their IPL 2026 squad on BCCI instructions, citing only “recent developments.” The unexplained move, widely viewed as politically motivated amid worsening India–Bangladesh relations, sparked alarm in Dhaka. Bangladeshi officials questioned how India could guarantee the safety of an entire national squad if a single player’s position could be jeopardised for non-cricketing reasons.
While the ICC’s security review reportedly concluded there was no specific threat to Bangladesh’s team in India, Wisden argues that the broader context cannot be ignored. Bangladesh’s stance, officials said, was not just about security but about refusing to allow their players to become political pawns. Youth and Sports Adviser Dr Asif Nazrul framed the decision as a matter of sovereignty and dignity, insisting Bangladesh would not bow to pressure or intimidation.
In contrast, India’s earlier decision to boycott travel to Pakistan was absorbed and accommodated by the ICC, largely due to India’s overwhelming commercial dominance in global cricket. Wisden notes that India’s economic power, broadcast revenue influence, and superstar-driven market value give it leverage no other board can realistically match. As a result, the ICC is widely perceived as bending rules for India while enforcing them rigidly on smaller nations.
For Bangladesh, the consequences are severe. A team that qualified on sporting merit has now lost its place on the world stage, not due to performance but due to geopolitics, administrative power struggles, and what many see as institutional imbalance. For critics, this is not just a cricketing dispute but evidence of a two-tier system in international cricket, where elite boards dictate terms and others pay the price.
Wisden concludes that while both India’s and Bangladesh’s cases can be defended on technical grounds, the outcomes expose an uncomfortable pattern: only one side gets what it wants, and it is always the most powerful one. As the ICC defends its decision, the credibility of global cricket governance faces renewed scrutiny over whether the game is being run by principle or by power.